Author
Topic: What the hell is OpenCandy? (Read 222668 times)

Well I gotta say this is all rather above board to me. Ads are everywhere, I see no real difference between an ad in the installer and one on the download page.

I also don't quite see Kartals position on installers, if the developer chooses to use OpenCandy even when an archive would have sufficed for distribution then that is the developers choice. I don't see where the issue with OpenCandy. Kartal you seem to be suggesting that that there is something inherently wrong in advertising in general. You also seem to be using the words spam and ads interchangeably which they certainly are not.

I have a question that needs clarification, if another developer wants to recommend an application through OpenCandy, without that developer being an OpenCandy member, can he do that?

In other words, if I were an OpenCandy member and wanted to recommend one of mouser's apps in the installer of one of mine, and he wasn't a member, could I do that?

@app103 (Sorry I went to bed right before you posted that last night.)

Yes, you could. But we think the right thing to do is for you (as a publisher) is to ask permission from the developer(s) whose software you want to recommend -- if that developer doesn't already participate in the OpenCandy network. In addition, the EULA of the software being recommended must allow the distribution of its installer.

RE: Installers vs. Zip

Many open source projects offer installer and installer-less builds of their software.

The link I posted above to MediaInfo's site mentions how its developer still offers a zip file for people that want to download and install MediaInfo without seeing an OpenCandy recommendation (though this could also be accomplished by blocking internet connectivity of the installer version). We don't force any developer recommending software via OpenCandy to abandon their zip installers (if they have them). They are free to do whatever they want. If they want to recommend software using OpenCandy, yes, they can only do it via an installer platform we support (currently that's NSIS, Inno or Installshield), but they are still free to offer any installer (zip or otherwise) with or without OpenCandy included if they choose to do so.

Just out of curiosity, what made the developers decide to use the word "open" as part of the product name? I'm curious since doing so usually makes people think such products are GPL/FOSS applications.

I'm also a little puzzled by this comment you made:

Quote

I didn’t expect to wake up this morning to a Google Alert about OpenCandy being raked over the proverbial coals.

It seems to me that running an early warning system such as this indicates that there has been serious concern on the part OpenCandy about negative comments to the extent that "Big Brother Google" is being used to seek out and monitor them. I think this says quite a bit about the mindset of the company.

I'd also take issue with your characterization of some of the early posts on this topic as: OpenCandy being raked over the proverbial coals. To my way of thinking, that comment seems to display a rather defensive attitude on the part of OpenCandy.

Which leads me to this question: How much negative pushback are you getting with this? Since you're monitoring via Google, I'd guess you'd have some very solid statistics you could share with us on on that topic beyond the usual "overall response has been very positive" PR boilerplate.

Yes, you could. But we think the right thing to do is for you (as a publisher) is to ask permission from the developer(s) whose software you want to recommend -- if that developer doesn't already participate in the OpenCandy network. In addition, the EULA of the software being recommended must allow the distribution of its installer.

So this isn't entirely opt-in from all angles, is it?

Where do I go to opt out, since I never want to see my software promoted in this manner.

Well I gotta say this is all rather above board to me. Ads are everywhere, I see no real difference between an ad in the installer and one on the download page.

Well if they like to promote free software, they can start a web page that promotes free applications and they can show whatever ads recommendation they want on the web sites instead of installers. They seem to have manpower, money and ideas to start such thing. But why are they choosing this particular method? Have you thought about it? Do you think they just like public service?

Showing banners, suggestions, installing toolbars via installers is no different than my postman wearing clothes with banners(like those race car drivers) and trying to break into my house to stick some advertisement inside my house everytime he brings my mail. And yes I do have a problem with that. Because an installer can be cryptic and be dangerous there is no way for a simple user to know all the nitty gritties of what is going on behind an installing session.

I also don't quite see Kartals position on installers, if the developer chooses to use OpenCandy even when an archive would have sufficed for distribution then that is the developers choice. I don't see where the issue with OpenCandy. Kartal you seem to be suggesting that that there is something inherently wrong in advertising in general. You also seem to be using the words spam and ads interchangeably which they certainly are not.

Do not get me wrong please but you do not seem to think ahead much here. Right, it is ok for now but I was predicting future. More and more developers might choose these bogus methods to make couple bucks.

Eóin, I try to live an ad free life, to me %98 of ads on the planet are obnoxious and waste of resources in my personal view, And spam is a way of delivering those obnoxious ads. Because ads are everywhere does not make "ads everywhere" a justified issue. Ads are everywhere because many people figured out "bogus" ways to make money, like putting banners on highway, buildings, times square, and noone questioned their acts. You know why economy is in peril? Some people figured out even more bogus ways to make money and no one scrutinized them. And that is I am doing here. If everyone was like you, anyone could get away with anything in year 2009. There is nothing wrong with being critical and asking serious questions about integrity of those who might make benefits from other people`s hard work. I personally do not see OC`s way of benefiting developers is being any more real than those ninja loans that benefitted those who taken those ninja loans(banking failures). In the long run developers will loose their dedicated users.

drapps has given Startup Manager as an example. I uninstalled otherday because it came with OC. I thought that tool was working without an installer. One day I tried to open it and it did not so that forced me to check the website for a new version. That is when I saw the new version with OC.

Just out of curiosity, what made the developers decide to use the word "open" as part of the product name? I'm curious since doing so usually makes people think such products are GPL/FOSS applications.

I wasn't a founder of OpenCandy but I do know that the world "open" was used because our network is open for any developer to use. I'm sure our name also has something to do with how hard it is to name a company these days and get the associated URL.

Quote

I'm also a little puzzled by this comment you made:

Quote

@drapps: I didn’t expect to wake up this morning to a Google Alert about OpenCandy being raked over the proverbial coals.

Quote

It seems to me that running an early warning system such as this indicates that there has been serious concern on the part OpenCandy about negative comments to the extent that "Big Brother Google" is being used to seek out and monitor them. I think this says quite a bit about the mindset of the company.

Which leads me to this question: How much negative pushback are you getting with this? Since you're monitoring via Google, I'd guess you'd have some very solid statistics you could share with us on on that topic beyond the usual "overall response has been very positive" PR boilerplate.

The word I track with Google Alerts is 'opencandy'. They isn't any connotation attached to it (negative or positive).

I use Google Alerts for the same reason anyone (person, company or organization) uses Google Alerts -- to find where the conversation is. It doesn't say anything negative about the mindset of our company or any company (person or organization) to want to be able participate in conversations about them. To me it says something positive -- it says that a company/person/organzation is willing to listen and discuss things openly (as I've done here).

Personally, I know a lot of everyday people who use Google Alerts to watch for mentions of their name or blog. I wouldn't be surprised if Mouser used Google Alerts so that he can know when someone mentions DonationCoder. I also received quite a few Google Alerts yesterday about the TechCrunch post regarding handshaking and how those attending the OpenCandy board of directors meeting didn't shake hands (to prevent spreading germs) and instead did the "fist bump". The handshaking topic was something written about by Michael Arrington of TechCrunch last week.

By the way, I'm not a PR person (by training, nature, or past history). I was chosen by OpenCandy to represent them because once I met with them and understood what they was doing I was really excited about it. You're not going to see or hear me use "boilerplate PR speak". It's just not who I am.

I was wondering, how many people here have seen what an OpenCandy powered recommendation looks like? If you haven't, I'd be happy to post a video on YouTube so you see how recommendations are presented to users.

Ok, I'll create one and upload it. I've never actually posted a video on YouTube (don't make fun of me). So it may take me a few more minutes than a YouTube veteran.

EDIT: It's going to take me a couple of hours to get a video up since the (Windows) machines in my lab are running Vista SP2 (I'm a TechNet subscriber) and we haven't enabled recommendations to be shown on Vista SP2 machines yet. I'm going to install Vista SP1 in order to get a video made. Stay tuned! Sorry.

I appreciate that Dr Apps/Andrew took time to make a detailed and friendly case for OpenCandy. You come across as a likeable person that believe that this is something good and take user worries seriously!

That said, I am still sceptical (but less so than initially).

1. I still think software using OpenCandy is adware. As I see it, software with enough ad presence in the whole chain of use is adware (chain of use: go to official website -- download software -- install software -- use software -- remove software) Above that level we have degrees. Ads in the GUI all the time means strong adware. OpenCandy is softer adware. That does not make it wrong per se. It might all things considered be a good deal for users. But I am sceptical.

2. Andrew wrote:

Quote

Would you rather have another opt-out browser toolbar trying to push it's way onto your system or have a recommendation for a piece of software that a developer you trust (you trust them enough to install their software) loves?

and:

Quote

There isn’t any choice there, if you surf the web that’s the way things are [=privacy intrusive]. And soon, all software installers will be the same way. But this can either be done the right way [...] or the wrong way.

I don't buy the framing of only two narrow alternatives in either case. There are other, better alternatives. Yes, webpages today get lots of info on their visitors. But that is a problem to solve, not copy to installers.

I think the installer is an especially bad place for ads from the users perspective. When running the installer a user wants to get the software running with as few distractions as possible. It is then easy to by mistake or at least without thinking it through click some ad or install some toolbar, just to get the distraction out of the way. It is a context for less informed or less though through user choices.

Finally, there are clearly already much better platforms for software recommendations from the users perspective: blogs, forums, magazines and so on.

Eóin, I try to live an ad free life, to me %98 of ads on the planet are obnoxious and waste of resources in my personal view, And spam is a way of delivering those obnoxious ads. Because ads are everywhere does not make "ads everywhere" a justified issue. Ads are everywhere because many people figured out "bogus" ways to make money, like putting banners on highway, buildings, times square, and noone questioned their acts.

Things can definitely go too far, an example: here in Ireland a number of vehicles have appeared which drive around towns and cities aimlessly carrying banner ads. To me that is a step too far as the ads are having a tangible negative impact; they add to our already serious traffic problems. Also it's unsustainable- it works only because a small number of ignoramuses with hard enough necks decided go ahead, if more follow suit then governments and legislation will no doubt have to step in.

That is the sort of behaviour I dislike, people abusing a loophole that exists only because no one previously had the thoughtlessness or selfishness to take advantage of it before.

But there is another side, ads can be beneficial. For example the ads in Gmail don't bother me because I see it as a fantastic free service which probably wouldn't be sustainable otherwise. I definitely see OpenCandy on this side, I've seen it in mediacoder myself and thought that's a neat way for the developer to get something back. To me viewing the ad was the least I could do as a tiny tiny thank you and I did so without any grievances.

Eóin, I believe I understand everyone` position and ideas here and I do respect them. My original point is that OC wont be a solution to developers. I know that developers`s works are greatly unappreciated, they do not get back what they were hoping. So in that sense OC might offer little bandage to couple developers but it is not a solution and I believe it will turn into obnoxious insane ad medium.

I appreciate that Dr Apps/Andrew took time to make a detailed and friendly case for OpenCandy. You come across as a likeable person that believe that this is something good and take user worries seriously!

Exactly! +1

I've question for kartal that if he thinks ad-supported service model is wrong then how developers are supposed to stand financially? (for this, i'm not referring to the model of opencandy).<maybe-off-topic>but would like to know your view on supporting devlopers financially.

I agree with kartal's view about opencandy being adware. If opencandy is not adware then what digsby IM is doing isn't adware at all. Besides i don't understand the toolbar and software recommendation thing. I will wait for the Youtube video link.

If you cannot sell your software you just stop developing it. I have mentioned this in some another topic, if you start a business and if it looks like you are not making any money you just close the business. It is very simple. There is no need to nudge and fudge by using things like ad supported service. I know this is not the common practice but I believe it is right thing to do.

Developing software is hard and selling it harder. I totally understand the positions of the developers. I do not have a solution for them but if it is not working out for them they should pursue something else. Ad supported solutions of anything is not a solution to anything. Ad supported services never get better they just get more and more obscene and obnoxious. I am sure you all have seen this happening around. Do you think that google would advertise less and less by the time goes? They will just make it less visible but more advertising. It is dead simple.

Yes. Not every developer is good at marketing. and freeware applications supported with ad-banners on web-page hardly earns bucks because of sites like download.com, tucows.com stealing their traffic. So yes, for some developement part is easy but selling it is very hard.

Quote

Ad supported services never get better they just get more and more obscene and obnoxious. I am sure you all have seen this happening around. Do you think that google would advertise less and less by the time goes?

I understand why one might be tempted to call anything that shows an ad "AdWare", but i think it would be a real mistake to put programs that use OpenCandy anywhere near the same category of programs that really use AdWare as i understand it.

Let's consider the two kinds of programs:

1. You install a program (be it word processor, utility, whatever) -- and every time it runs it shows some advertisements in the window. I wouldn't install such a program personally (though i'm not saying there is anything inherently bad or evil about it -- people seem very happy to use web software that does this). This is what I call AdWare.

2. A program that shows some ads during the installation, but the actual software installed and used on a daily basis contains no ads or anything extra running on your pc. This is what OpenCandy seems to do, and i think it would be misleading to call such software AdWare. If you call this AdWare, then any program installer that showed a little picture "advertising" the authors web site, or other programs written by the author, would be considered AdWare.

Honestly, do we really want to label as AdWare any program whose installer shows such a banner or image *only during the installation process* adware? I think that would be pretty misleading and confusing. This is not even in the same universe as a program that shows ads when you run it, and seems totally harmless to me.

ps.Everyone knows i really dislike ads -- i think more than most people. i've resisted putting them on dc, and i have written over and over again how i find the googleization of the web and the desire to put ads everywhere very troubling.

To me, putting ads or recommendations or surverys or whatever on an application *installer* that i use only once, is one of the least bothersome things i've heard -- as far as i'm concerned when i am installing someone's software they have the right to show me some quick info about their company, ask me to consider donating, answer some optional questions, recommend i support some charities, tell me their political views, etc. and it doesn't bother me or strike me as wrong in any way. As long as once i install the software it leaves me alone.

I would like to make one thing clear on my side. The ads are not a big deal. I would turn off the internet install it run virus software block it with firewall etc etc. My position on ads are in general very close to mouser`s position. The main troubling thing to me is the privacy aspect. Gathering information about people`s behaviour in any way is invasion of privacy unless someone willingly knowingly giving it away. In that sense, the whole web turned into place for phishing pretty much. And this was not the web we were dreaming back in early 90s. How did we get to this place? Because of AD SUPPORTED SERVIVE MENTALITY. Now everyone wants statistics about you to sell to another. It is a scheme that will create bigger burden for us later.

Back to OC, showing recommandations is not a problem if it was done by charity that has no intention abotu collecting any kind of information about you. But these people are in this business to just to do opposite of that. These little baby steps and sneaking into your private computer environments are all about gathering mor and more data about you so that they can target you with more ads.

I would like to mention that I have nothing to hide, it is not like I am hiding anything here, if anyone is living my area would like to check, they can come and check to see if I have some fishy stuff going on my computers. The reason I am worried about privacy aspects more than many other people is that I just find it wrong that many companies-entities do not care about everyone`s right to be stay invisible and be no one.

The concept presented in the demo video is hardly new, just the content of the optional installs is different, rather than being a toolbar and such. Just because a 'back end' recommendation is behind it doesn't make it any different for the end user.

I stand by everything i've said above -- seems fine to me, and i like how it launches the normal installer for the recommended program if the user chooses to install it, so user can always change their mind and cancel, or uninstall later, etc.

Couple things came to mind watching it:

Developers need to very clearly identify whether the program being recommended is freeware or shareware -- you wouldn't want people installing programs they think are free only to find out they are shareware.

It would be nice to add to the OpenCandy recommendation screen a link where the user can Learn more about the recommended program (taking them to it's web page), and maybe a link to OpenCandy page describing what it is.

I stand by everything i've said above -- seems fine to me, and i like how it launches the normal installer for the recommended program if the user chooses to install it, so user can always change their mind and cancel, or uninstall later, etc.

Couple things came to mind watching it:

Developers need to very clearly identify whether the program being recommended is freeware or shareware -- you wouldn't want people installing programs they think are free only to find out they are shareware.

It would be nice to add to the OpenCandy recommendation screen a link where the user can Learn more about the recommended program (taking them to it's web page), and maybe a link to OpenCandy page describing what it is.

@mouser

Agree on both counts.

#1) Yes, we have explicit wording on the recommendation screen that says if an application is a trial (as opposed to free or open source).

#2) Coming soon! We are currently working on and testing a new version of our engine which will allow for links on the recommendation screen (such as a link to a landing page on the OpenCandy website explaining what's going on).

Mouser: Ok, there are some intricacies concerning the labelling but I think you go too far in the other direction. OpenCandy clearly belong to a category of programs that display ads, in one way or the other. That is a common feature it shares with software with constant GUI ads. Many other freeware and commercial software products lack that feature.

Calling it adware would be a problem if most who hear that label then automatically assume that it was just like a strong form of adware with big blinking ads in the GUI, which it isn't. But it would be just as misleading if some OpenCandy wrapped program was automatically categorized together with completely ad-free software. It is somewhere inbetween. Soft adware still seems like a fitting term. But here's another alternative: "installeradware".